Suzanne Peterson

All too often, even the most seasoned leaders hit a proverbial roadblock in their effectiveness despite their impressive expertise or acumen, experience or skill set. This is because at a certain point in a leader’s career, competence is assumed and, therefore, carries less weight.

Instead, peers, school board members, teams and even those closest to the leader focus their evaluation of leader effectiveness largely on how a leader communicates and influences others. Indeed, in my experience as an executive coach, the most common coaching challenge associated with leadership effectiveness on a day-to-day basis is a misalignment of leadership style to the situation.

Generally, when leaders struggle with their style, they are told they are intimidating, cold, serious, formal, direct or abrasive or that they are too nice, deferential, unconfident, boring, uninfluential, passive or soft.

Leaders are left scratching their heads about why they are perceived this way and what to do to change it. After all, we are who we are, right?

Yes, but this way of thinking is too simplistic. Personality is who we are on the inside, and it is largely immutable. However, personality does not determine leadership style. In my executive coaching work, my colleagues and I have found that leadership style is more behavioral in nature. 

For instance, a superintendent could possess the personality trait of calmness/emotional stability. Although this sounds appealing (and it can be), the behaviors associated with calmness can have a downside at times. A calm leader may fail to display passion or engagement for ideas, lack dynamism or inspiration when speaking about the vision, or fail to provide a sense of urgency during a crisis. When combined, these behaviors characterize a less-influential style regardless of personality.

In other words, there is no such thing as a good or bad leadership style without context. However, if you don’t take time to be intentional about how you want to be perceived in every situation, your style might not fit. If you choose to behave too agreeably in a situation that calls for you to demonstrate respect and expertise, you might not gain support for your ideas.

Similarly, if you choose to lead with confidence and expertise in a situation that calls for you to be a strong listener and supporter, you may be shown the door.

Case in Point: Personality vs. Style

I worked closely with a dean of a large business school who was told he was unapproachable. Faculty shied away from meeting with him unless it was a necessity. Perhaps his personality was indeed cold, introverted or even antagonistic. However, in the world of style coaching, it doesn’t matter. Instead, we look to his behavior, which we know produces the labels and evaluations others confer to us.

When I observed the dean in faculty meetings, I noticed he never smiled or nodded as a sign of listening when others were talking. He also tended to stare intently at others while they were talking, and when he didn’t like what someone said, he used a dismissive hand gesture to convey that message. The point is that regardless of the dean’s personality, a good coach would tell him to change those small behaviors to create a warmer interaction.

If style is distinct from personality, then where does it come from? More than three decades ago, sociolinguist Howard Giles first identified a set of social markers or behaviors that people use differentially depending on whether or not they hold status. For example, faculty members may verbally admonish or ignore a student who fails to follow directions on an assignment but behave deferentially to their school’s administrator when they want a preferential teaching load.

These markers or behaviors can be expressed through verbal communication (declarative statements versus questions), nonverbal communication (eye contact, physical distance) or contextual markers of status (dress, seating position in the room). The table below offers a more extensive list of the markers leaders most commonly expressed.

Context Matters

These markers send a message to others about how much status we feel or how resourceful we feel. When we feel resourceful, we use markers of power and when we feel less resourceful, we use markers of attractiveness. Importantly, neither style is better than the other. Both have positive and negative sides depending on when they are used.

When power markers are viewed positively, they lead to attributions of influence, poise, charisma and confidence. When power markers are viewed negatively, the leader receives attributions such as arrogant, stoic, aggressive, direct and intimidating.

When attractive markers are seen as positive, attributions such as collaborative, relational, warm and approachable are used. Negative attributions of attractiveness are weak, boring, passive or unconfident.

The faculty member referenced above felt the resource of age and title/position over the student so had no problem speaking with authority when addressing the student. However, when facing his supervisor who held resources over him, he behaved more obsequiously.

Shifting Styles

When we feel a sense of status and hold more resources, we lean toward the power style (good and bad). We speak up early and often, feel more comfortable disagreeing, may interrupt more often, use more humor and sarcasm, walk ahead of others and sit at the head of the table.

When we feel less status or hold fewer resources, we naturally lean toward attractiveness to try to confer relational capital. We may be told we are nice and easy-going, but to speak up, push back, raise one’s hand, stop apologizing and be more decisive.

Importantly, there is no right or wrong or normative style. Rather, leaders who are more strategic with their style are always shifting. They ask themselves “How do I want to be seen in this meeting?” and from there, they vary the mix of markers they use. Said differently, leaders who are the most successful understand the need to flex their style to meet the demands of the situation. They understand how they are likely to be perceived by a particular audience and then make decisions about whether they should behave more or less powerfully or more or less attractive. Deciding on what markers work best in each situation is the key to effective style management.

Few people are all powerful or all attractive. Instead, they lean toward one side or the other. The goal is to find that blend of power and attractiveness. In other words, how can we be powerful enough to gain respect and to be listened to, but attractive enough to be followed. This blend is true gravitas or executive presence.

An Authentic Presence

If you want to flex your style, it is important to flex only within your authentic range. Some people can easily swing from power to attractive. Others operate within a much narrower band where their movement from powerful to attractiveness is nuanced and slight. Both can be effective.

The best thing to do is to consider where your natural style is (e.g., many first-born children naturally lean powerfully because they were used to holding the resource of first in the family hierarchy). From there, consider the feedback you have received from others and go from there. Are you told that you use too much academic jargon, are too nice, too emotional, need to be a better listener, are too loud, need more energy or are too formal/informal?

Think about that feedback and then experiment with a few markers noted in the leadership markers table to change the perception. Ask yourself how you want to be seen and let that guide your choice of markers. For instance, if you want to be seen as a supportive colleague in a meeting, consider attractiveness markers that convey listening and support. If you want to be seen as the top expert, you may consider more markers of power like direct language, compelling data or stories, vivid language or even how you dress. Typically, a few markers make all the difference. Too many markers hurt your authenticity. Too few and it won’t have an effect.

Lingering Stereotypes

An important point should be made around culture and gender. Many people worry that style disproportionately affects women and those not of a majority group. While style is something that affects everyone, it is true that women and those who may be seen as minorities (e.g., people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, etc.) need to navigate the style continuum more carefully because of a contrast effect. That is, assertive women often are told they are off-putting whereas the assertive man is seen as passionate or ambitious. Similarly, a warm and relational woman who seeks consensus may be told she needs to be more confident and decisive whereas a man is told he is doing a great job of listening and building consensus.

Minorities also suffer from stereotypes associated with style. Some minorities worry about being perceived as too aggressive if they disagree publicly compared to a member of the majority who is labeled assertive. Similarly, other minorities are told they are too passive, quiet or deferential whereas their majority counterparts are labeled agreeable and collaborative.

Unfortunately, these stereotypes remain for many. Still, I offer the same advice to all people regardless of their status. I suggest there is no normative style, and no one should be told to change who they are culturally or personality-wise to please others.

However, we all need to consider how we want to be seen in a situation while taking into account the audience. I work with a colleague who is confident and assertive but worries about being perceived as angry when she disagrees with her peers on the leadership team. She wants to be seen as a peer who has an influential voice, but she certainly does not want to be seen as angry.

The coaching style I suggested to her was to disagree agreeably, which means to disagree while first validating the perspective of the others. For example, “Bill and Kevin, I can absolutely see what you want to change about the curriculum requirement for that course. It would make many of our lives easier. Let me tell you how I thought about it, which led me to a different conclusion.” This approach allowed her to disagree, but also to be seen more collaboratively.

Messengers Prevail

Style is particularly important to the success of leaders because, whether we like it or not, it is a contaminator of our competence. People evaluate messengers with a more discerning eye than the messages they convey. 

Leaders would be wise to ask themselves how they want to be seen before entering any situation. Once they have decided this, they can more easily make small shifts to ensure they are perceived as they intended. In short, the ability to flex our style helps ensure our messages are heard.

SUZANNE PETERSON is an associate professor at the Thunderbird School of Global Management at Arizona State University in Phoenix, Ariz., and author of How to Develop Your Leadership Style. Twitter: @admiredleaders